Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Defending Christine O'Donnell (groan)

She is a moonbat. She is not really the sharpest knife in the box. But I have to come out and defend her on this one...

In a debate with her opponent for Senate, Chris Coons brought up that Creationism (groan) should not be taught in Public Schools. Christine asked "Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state?" Coons replied that it was in the First Amendment. Here Christine gave her typical deer in the headlights look and sputtered "You're telling me that's in the First Amendment?"

As we all slap our foreheads in dismay that such a moron could have actually won the nomination from a major party, I have to give her a little credit here. The Separation of Church and state is actually not specifically written in to the Constitution. It is implied from the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise clause.
Here is the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Did you catch that? The separation of church and state is derived from Congress not being able to interfere with the practice of religion nor the establishment of a religion.
If you read specifically the text of the First Amendment, you see that there is no clause saying that religion and the state are separated, you only see that the Congress can not impede the practice or the establishment of religion.
Why was this done? It was done to ensure first that the United States of America would be free from state sponsored religious persecution. It was also done to prevent any foreign religious leader (the Pope) from taking power in the United States.

What Christine should have done was to ask Coons the exact text that creates the separation of church and state in the Constitution. If he could do it, ask him how teaching Creationism (groan) would violate the Establishment and Free Practice clauses of the Constitution. This can then lead in to one of her strength and greatest criticisms of the Coons and the Left, that of Activist Judges. If she is pressed on the issue, she could have brought up that there was no problem with voluntary religious practice in Government until the modern "progressive" New Deal liberals made it to the SCOUS in the late 1940s and 1950s. Even the author of the Constitution, James Madison signed religious proclamations during his presidency(Tom Jefferson, however did not).

Instead we had the Democrat Coons score points by having her and, by association, the Tea Party look like extremist idiots.
Christine deserves to loose. She doesn't have the brain power to roll with the likes of Coons, she will get rolled in the rough and tumble of Washington where she will be a target for both sides of the isle. Coons, like a prison bitch, will simply hide behind his Democrat daddies.